Ex parte GOMES et al. - Page 4


                    Appeal No. 1997-0961                                                                                                     
                    Application No. 08/254,654                                                                                               




                    of the answer, it does not necessarily follow that all closed loop control circuits necessarily have                     
                    comparator and deviation control circuits corresponding to appellants= claimed comparator                                
                    means and deviation control means.  In fact, Fales discloses a closed loop valve control circuit                         
                    which lacks a comparator.  In Fales valve control circuit, the LVDT (80, 81, 83) has a movable                           
                    spool 75 attached to the valve member 68 to produce a signal that is representative of the valve                         
                    position.  The LVDT signal is rectified by a rectifier circuit 87, and the rectified LVDT signal is                      
                    fed back by circuit connections to adjust the power applied to energize the valve=s solenoid                             
                    coil 78.                                                                                                                 
                             In view of the foregoing, the examiner has not made a sufficient factual showing or                             
                    advanced sufficient technical reasoning to support his position of inherency about the                                   
                    comparator means.  Based on the prior art applied by the examiner we are therefore                                       
                    constrained to reverse his decision rejecting appealed claims 2 through 11.                                              
                             On remand to the examiner, the examiner should give due consideration to the following                          
                    matters.                                                                                                                 
                             First, the examiner should review the U.S. Patent No. 4,790,511 issued to Norbert                               
                    Gehrig et al. and possibly other patents of record in the file wrapper for supporting an art                             
                    rejection under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) or ' 103.  In the Gehrig patent, a comparator circuit 7                               
                    (called an amplifier) compares a signal representing the desired valve position with a feedback                          
                    signal representing the actual valve position to produce an error signal that is used to control the                     
                    current supplied to energize the valve control solenoid 6.  See                                                          
                    column 2, lines 25-37, of the Gehrig specification.                                                                      
                             The second matter requiring the examiner=s attention relates to the recitation in claim 2                       
                    of Aelectronic input signals@ in the plural and Aelectronic feedback signals@ in the plural.  In                         
                    contrast, appellants= summary of the invention on page 2 of the brief refers to an Ainput                                


                                         4                                                                                                   




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007